Archive for August, 2003

Once again, MTV throws wild party

I constantly find myself saying, whenever Madonna comes up in conversation, “Well, yeah, but she’s a GREAT artist. And, despite what anyone else says, I think she was wonderful in Evita.”

Then she does something like kiss Britney Spears or thank France for opposing the invasion of Iraq. Too bad.

She really does put out some good music. Why doesn’t she stick to what she knows? And if she really wants to be taken seriously when she comments on politics, she shouldn’t do things like this. She’s going on and on about some issue or another, but everyone is just thinking “This woman gave Britney Spears tongue on national TV.” Sad.

Carrier’s departure for training, deployment delayed a day

The USS Enterprise is about to deploy, first for training and then on to the seven seas. The normal six-month deployment may be stretched a little as the Navy works to get its carriers back onto their normal rotation following the campaign in Iraq.

At Least 75 Killed in Iraq Mosque Blast

According to M-W, ‘infidel’ means

1 : one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
3 : a disbeliever in something specified or understood

It seems to me that definition 2a fits the attackers quite nicely.

I’m not 100% positive, but I believe this is the same mosque that 101st Airborne soldiers did not return fire into (so as not to offend the locals) when they were attacked from within it in April. None of the coverage I’ve read indicates that it is, so maybe it’s a different mosque in Najaf. I’m on my own so far on that point.

Either way, I don’t see how this is going to increase support for the anti-US front.

Barry County residents evacuated

Barry County, Mich., Aug. 28 – Some Barry County residents are being kept from their homes after a tanker truck spilled 4,000 gallons of gasoline, at the rate of a gallon per minute.

4,000 gallons at a gallon a minute would take 66 hours, 40 minutes. I’m just saying.

Saudis Challenge U.S. Over Iraq Fighters

A reader sent me the link to this story about a Saudi official challenging allegations by some US officials that Saudi citizens have crossed into Iraq to fight American troops.

The first thing I notice is that the Saudi official, foreign policy adviser Adel al-Jubeir, isn’t actually denying the allegations. He’s just asking for proof. Given the participation of Saudi citizens in so many recent terrorist incidents, that’s prudent. He also makes an offer:

“We are willing to send a team to Iraq to look at any evidence they might have,” he said. “Saudi Arabia is determined to fight terrorism and to prosecute terrorists regardless of where they are.”

It certainly appears on the surface that the Saudi government is more willing to fight terrorism lately, but I always get the feeling that too many government and military types in Saudi Arabia are at least sympathetic to if not outrightly members of, the very organizations we want them to fight.

Al-Jubeir said Saudi guards are on full patrol along the Iraqi border, but that American troops have failed to occupy the border positions that were abandoned by Iraqi soldiers at the start of the war.

“We have raised this issue with the U.S. on a number of times, both before the war and after the hostilities ended,’ al-Jubeir said. “We have raised the importance of sealing the Iraqi border with the U.S. government because of concerns there might be smuggling of weapons from Iraq into Saudi Arabia.”

So does that mean that the patrols that were meant to keep Iraqis out of Saudi Arabia are not able to monitor the situation? Remember, Iraq has been openly hostile to Saudi Arabia for many years, and the main reason we were able to send troops to the kingdom in 1990 was that Saudi Arabia feared they were next on Saddam’s list. Or could it possibly be that, with US forces in both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the past decade, Saudi Arabia hasn’t been taking its responsibility to guard its own border as seriously?

Have those 28 pages about Saudi Arabia in the Congressional 9/11 Report been released? Or at least shared with the Saudis? I haven’t head that they have.

We know that foreign fighters are entering Iraq. The main reason we know this is that Maureen Dowd says they are and that it’s the latest proof that Bush is an idiot. Besides that, they’ve been there all along. And more are coming every day, according to just about anyone. It seems that someone is listening to all those tape bin Laden puts out.

I personally believe that the increased activity of foreign fighters in Iraq indicates that the Iraqi fighters willing to fight the infidel occupiers are either unable to do so or dead. Again, I don’t know if this was the plan all along, but I think it’s probably plan ‘B’.

Saudi Arabia wants proof that Saudis are entering from Saudi Arabia and attacking infrastructure or US forces? Why don’t we just send them back the bodies?

Using Private Lynch

Jessica Lynch was awarded a Bronze Star? Seriously?

Not that I have any ill will toward Pvt. Lynch, but was she truly heroic?

1 : of, relating to, or resembling heroes especially of antiquity
2 a : exhibiting or marked by courage and daring b : supremely noble or self-sacrificing

She was certainly courageous, but I just don’t think this is right. I’m pretty certain that there are hundreds of soldiers in the combat units that led the charge to Baghdad that are far more deserving, but won’t even get recommended for a bronze star, let alone considered for one or awarded one. If she had, in fact, been wounded by enemy fire during the ambush of her unit but still managed to fight off the attackers until she ran out of ammunition, as some early stories reported, then she certainly would deserve decoration. But those stories have been proven false, and she can’t even tell her story publicly becasue she has “amnesia.”

This is just another spin move to drum up public support for the troops and the effort in Iraq. Speaking as one who already supports the troops and our effort in Iraq, I think silliness like this hurts the cause more than it helps.

Here are a couple of other stories on SFTT about Lynch:
Hints of Torture and Rape

Lynch Deserved Praise – But Not the Medal

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

It seems that in some palces where US or British troops have been replaced by units of other nationalities there are problems. There is annecdotal evidence that the Iraqis prefer to be occupied by US or UK forces rather than those from other countries.

Something that occurs to me is that troops from a country (Italy, for instance, from what I hear) where it is often fashionable to look down noses at cultures percieved to be “lesser” or “uncivilized” must look at the poor, destitue Iraqi population with less than enthusiasm. Obviously, American perceptions aren’t perfect, either, but the impression I’ve had is that our guys are being excellent representatives of our country. Even though a great many of them support our presence, it must still be galling to the average Iraqi to be occupied, by Americans or otherwise. But it’s seeming as if, given the choice, the Iraqis prefer American troops.

Halliburton scores big off Iraq

Although I didn’t think it was possible, it seems that the contracts awarded to Halliburton are bigger than previously thought. Now, I’m all for outsourcing support operations when the situation allows it, and I know that there are legal reasons that make the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, um, legal.

But Halliburton, due to its ties to VP Cheney, needs to at least act like they’re on the straight an narrow. Even if everything is on the up and up (and since there are both humans and dollars involved, you now that it isn’t) wouldn’t they want to make sure that there isn’t even an appearance of impropriety?

Daniel Carlson, a spokesman for the Army’s Joint Munitions Command, said Brown and Root had won a competitive bidding process in 2001 to provide a wide range of “contingency” services to the military in the event of the deployment of U.S. troops overseas. He said the contract, known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP, was designed to free up uniformed personnel for combat duties and did not preclude deals with other contractors.
Carlson said the money earmarked for Brown and Root was an estimate, and could go “up or down” depending on the work performed.

“Up or down.” Hmmmm. I know which option my money would be on. And as a taxpayer, it is.

The whole idea behind outsourcing and privatization is that for-profit specialists can do many jobs better and cheaper than government agencies. When they can’t, the work shouldn’t be outsourced. I’ve got no problems with some people making a little money if it’s for the best in the long run, but this isn’t ‘a little’ money, and whether it’s for the best in the long run is certainly debatable in the face of no-bid contracts and no-show support personnel.

As a final note, I want to make something perfectly clear, especially to anyone who might think that they’re “bringing me around.” I agree with and support whole-heartedly WHAT we’re doing in Iraq. That doesn’t mean I always support HOW we’re doing it. And although I don’t think the ‘how’ is quite as important as the ‘what’, it’s close.

Update
I don’t have any idea how many other companies would have been interested in bidding on the “no-bid” contracts, and I realize that there is more to judging bids than the dollar amount. For instance, Microsoft could offer to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq, and even if they were willing to do it for one-tenth of the price Halliburton would, they would not win the contract. At least I hope not.

Also, I don’t have problems with freezing parties out of the bidding for any number of reasons. For instance, I don’t care how cheaply France could support our troops. And I believe that British and Australian companies, especially, deserve preferential consideration because of their government’s willingness to take part in our mission.

The real problem arises when a company is awarded a contract unfairly over more-deserving competitors. If that’s the case with some of this Halliburton work, it needs to be addressed. If they get the work simply because of VP Cheney, there needs to be significant repercussions. I don’t know all the facts.

Lastly, Halliburton’s stock price hasn’t really reflected their war profiteering, if that’s what they’re doing.

REPORT: STRYKERS = SITTING DUCKS

The criticism of the Stryker Light Armored Vehicle is heating up as the vehicle’s first deployment approaches. Defense Tech points out the most recent example. Most of the latest gripes refer to the fact that the Stryker’s armor may not be strong enough to protect troops from rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), but I haven’t see anyone point out that the the M113A3, the tracked vehicle that most opponents of the Stryker favor, wouldn’t fare any better against them.

Readers of MO will know that I am in favor of the Stryker, and wholeheartedly in favor of deploying it to Iraq. However, there are quite a few things that need to be worked out. (That’s why I want it deployed.)

The biggest concern that I have is that the plan to deploy Stryker via C-130 cargo planes seems to be in jeopardy. The Strykers need to let some air out of their tires to fit within the cargo bay of the planes, they cannot carry a full load of gear and consumables (although this wasn’t an original requirement), and the entire crew won’t always be able to travel in the same plane as the vehicle. Although these are major problems with C-130 mobility, which was a big selling point of the Stryker, they aren’t show stoppers.

The major test for the Stryker will be how it performs in Iraq. The wheels should allow for far greater speed and range, especially on roads, compared to tanks and tracked infantry fighting vehicles, and the armor and weaponry should provide far greater firepower than the humvees that many US units are now using for missions that the Stryker will perform.

And therein is the crux of the matter. The Stryker is not a replacement for a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. It is not a front-line combatant in major setpiece battles. It also isn’t a jeep or a truck to simply move troops around. It’s somewhere in between.

Every combat vehicle is a compromise between mobility, protection, and firepower. The M1 tank rates about a 9 or 10 in both firepower and protection, but its mobility, both on the ground and when being transported, is closer to a 1 or 2. The M2 Bradley, on the other hand is lower in both protection and firepower, and higher in mobility. The Stryker is designed with mobility the first priority, but with priority still given to both firepower and protection.

Will enemy tank rounds simply bounce off the Stryker’s armor, as they do against an M1? Absolutely not. Can the Styker dish out as much destruction as an M2? No. But it’s not designed to engage the kinds of targets that the top-notch armor is. The idea is that the Stryker, when fighting enemies armed like our current enemies in Iraq are armed, can get to the battle more quickly and still take the opposing force down. I think that, despite problems like all new combat systems have, the Stryker will perform well in Iraq.

Here are some links to some stories and articles regarding the Styker that I’ve come across:

The Army’s New Car is a Lemon
Lonnie T. Shoultz, an outspoken critic of the Stryker, weighs in on the possibility of scandal behind every single decision ever made regarding the Stryker. Among his points

The only occassions on which the Stryker has even been able to get into the air in C-130s, was when the Air Force could send them one of the newest, highest-powered ‘J’ model C-130s. However, the C-130J comprises less than 10% of all 500 Air Force C-130s, and there is no money or plans to upgrade the rest of the transport plane fleet.

Here’s a post of mine regarding another Shoultz piece.

Army’s new wheeled armored vehicle criticized
Among the major points against the Styker is

“People don’t realize that in the heavy divisions even today, there are more M-113s than there are Abrams or Bradleys,” [retired Army Col. John Barnes] said. “There are parts in the system to fix the M-113, and mechanics who know how to maintain it. The Stryker will require a whole new logistics stream.”

Gingrich Tells Top DOD Officials Army’s Stryker Shouldn’t Be Fielded
Actually, the fact that Newt Gingrich opposes the Stryker might actually increase the ammunition of Stryker supporters. Newt thinks the Stryker

“should either be canceled or limited to one test brigade that will never be air-transported but that could be used” to evaluate new electronics.

Stryker Strikes Gold in Iraq
The Marines don’t use the Stryker, but they do use the LAV III, the basis for the Styker. They apparently were generally pleased with it during the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

But the marines have been using wheeled armored vehicles for decades and found them quite useful in Iraq. The marines used their LAVs (Light Armored Vehicles) battalions to perform of variety of tasks that were only possible because of the high road speed of the wheeled LAVs. The LAV battalions screened the division flanks, dashed ahead to quickly seize distant objectives and were readily available as a blocking force.

(No permalinks on Strategy Page, so go to the August 25 story in “Armor.”)

If the Styker is used for the types of missions it was designed for, I think we’ll get good results. The current situation in Iraq is perfect for a “trial by fire” for the vehicle and its crews. Let’s hope they perform like they’re capable of and that our billions have been well-spent. Stryker might be the harbinger of the Army’s transformation that so many have called for. We’ll see this fall.

They’ve also got a feature up about air travel, which is funny because I was just explaining my dislike for airports to my wife last night.